Exit Poll Its PM Boris with 80 odd majority

not sure how but we should be looking at another way of doing politics and have also advocated many times we should look at some form of proportional respresentation and looking at those stats you can't disagree . this first past the post system needs to be looked at as it belongs in the past .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOZZER2

not sure how but we should be looking at another way of doing politics and have also advocated many times we should look at some form of proportional respresentation and looking at those stats you can't disagree . this first past the post system needs to be looked at as it belongs in the past .

---

The country was offered a watered down version of pr called the alternative vote but most people couldn't even be bothered to get out of bed to vote for it

With the tories in such a commanding position now we have no chance of getting electoral reform for the foreseeable future

It's the same tedious scripted pantomime at every General Election that the majority of voters fall for (76% voted for the reds or blues) with the two major parties casting the other as a scary villain. The Tories will crush the poor and downtrodden Labour says while the Tories portray Labour as financially clueless who will bankrupt the country. Neither side will institute PR because both know they will lose the opportunity to gain unfettered power. PR would eliminate the prospect of their supposedly terrible foe from having free reign to wreak havoc on who they say they want to protect, but both are dead against doing the obvious. That's because it's much easier for those who really run the show from behind the stage to get what they want (i.e., more for themselves, less for everyone else).

Below is Thursday's seats won under first past the post and what they would have been in brackets under PR.

Con 365 (289)
Lab 203 (213)
Lib 11 (76)
SNP 48 (26)
Brexit 0 (13)
Green 1 (18)
Others 22 (15)

The Tories took 43.6% of votes cast for those 365 seats. The biggest post war General Election win by seats taken was Labour's 418 in 1997 when they attracted a smaller percentage (43.2%) than the Tories did on Thursday. The system is so farcical that in 1951 Labour had the highest percentage of post war General Election votes with 48.8% but lost the election to the Tories and their 48.0% share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

It's the same tedious scripted pantomime at every General Election that the majority of voters fall for (76% voted for the reds or blues) with the two major parties casting the other as a scary villain. The Tories will crush the poor and downtrodden Labour says while the Tories portray Labour as financially clueless who will bankrupt the country. Neither side will institute PR because both know they will lose the opportunity to gain unfettered power. PR would eliminate the prospect of their supposedly terrible foe from having free reign to wreak havoc on who they say they want to protect, but both are dead against doing the obvious. That's because it's much easier for those who really run the show from behind the stage to get what they want (i.e., more for themselves, less for everyone else).

Below is Thursday's seats won under first past the post and what they would have been in brackets under PR.

Con 365 (289)
Lab 203 (213)
Lib 11 (76)
SNP 48 (26)
Brexit 0 (13)
Green 1 (18)
Others 22 (15)

The Tories took 43.6% of votes cast for those 365 seats. The biggest post war General Election win by seats taken was Labour's 418 in 1997 when they attracted a smaller percentage (43.2%) than the Tories did on Thursday. The system is so farcical that in 1951 Labour had the highest percentage of post war General Election votes with 48.8% but lost the election to the Tories and their 48.0% share.

---

Exactly:thumbup:

“ The sad thing is that whatever people think of Corbyn, his policies were designed to help these very people, they were genuine and honest “

Deluded. He’s policy’s we’re naive. London Labour MP centric and nothing to do with the labour heartlands.

“ The sad thing is that whatever people think of Corbyn, his policies were designed to help these very people, they were genuine and honest “

Exactly right. I don't know what part of the manifesto could be honestly described as 'London Labour MP centric' (whatever that means).

I do know the manifesto was enthusiastically adopted by Labour Party members across its traditional heartlands and that it wasn't (apart from the Brexit stance) a major problem on the doorstep - in fact the opposite. It was as popular as the 2017 version.

Brexit was a problem. Corbyn was marmite. The anti-semitism mud stuck. There were other reasons too - but not generally the policy proposals in the manifesto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

“ The sad thing is that whatever people think of Corbyn, his policies were designed to help these very people, they were genuine and honest “

Exactly right. I don't know what part of the manifesto could be honestly described as 'London Labour MP centric' (whatever that means).

I do know the manifesto was enthusiastically adopted by Labour Party members across its traditional heartlands and that it wasn't (apart from the Brexit stance) a major problem on the doorstep - in fact the opposite. It was as popular as the 2017 version.

Brexit was a problem. Corbyn was marmite. The anti-semitism mud stuck. There were other reasons too - but not generally the policy proposals in the manifesto.

---

You're right. The policy proposals weren't a problem - people just didn't believe them. a daily diet of a new multi billion pound idea which in total would cost 25% of GDP, and then tell people they're going to be thousands of pounds better of every year. These are folk who have to budget on a daily basis and know how money works.

McDonnell and Corbyn, two creeps of the highest order..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

You're right. The policy proposals weren't a problem - people just didn't believe them. a daily diet of a new multi billion pound idea which in total would cost 25% of GDP, and then tell people they're going to be thousands of pounds better of every year. These are folk who have to budget on a daily basis and know how money works.

McDonnell and Corbyn, two creeps of the highest order..

---

I don't think there was a big swing against Labour directly because of what their Manifesto said, but the problem was that every day brought a new expensive policy and, by the time it came to vote, there was belief that they had gone into the realms of fantasy. Just sticking to four or five core popular policies would have suited Labour better, but, honestly, all I think it would have done was reduce the Tory majority somewhat - this election was not decided by what was in party manifestos (not sure if they ever are).

I've seen suggestions that Corbyn's "defence" of Russia following the Skripal poisonings played badly with patriotic working class voters and I think that's probably correct (although the irony which sees them voting for a man called Boris who suppresses Parliamentary reports into Russian involvement in UK elections/referendums does not escape me) - Corbyn was not the only reason Labour were routed, but I'd say he was the biggest one when you consider his stance on Brexit.

Agree with Bob. The manifestos werent that influential on either side imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I don't think there was a big swing against Labour directly because of what their Manifesto said, but the problem was that every day brought a new expensive policy and, by the time it came to vote, there was belief that they had gone into the realms of fantasy. Just sticking to four or five core popular policies would have suited Labour better, but, honestly, all I think it would have done was reduce the Tory majority somewhat - this election was not decided by what was in party manifestos (not sure if they ever are).

I've seen suggestions that Corbyn's "defence" of Russia following the Skripal poisonings played badly with patriotic working class voters and I think that's probably correct (although the irony which sees them voting for a man called Boris who suppresses Parliamentary reports into Russian involvement in UK elections/referendums does not escape me) - Corbyn was not the only reason Labour were routed, but I'd say he was the biggest one when you consider his stance on Brexit.

---

Totally agree with your last sentence. I wish he could bring himself to say sorry to his party and those MPs who have lost their jobs. He seems to find apologising difficult. I hope he does not hang about. We need a strong opposition whoever is in government and we won't get that until he and his front bench have gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surge

Anyone want to guess how long until we get the report looking at Russian interference in our political system?

---

Well there were definitely bots at work on Facebook earlier this week. It would be naive to think that Russia made no attempt to swing the election in its desired direction. If it's chaos they wanted, they're going to get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

Totally agree with your last sentence. I wish he could bring himself to say sorry to his party and those MPs who have lost their jobs. He seems to find apologising difficult. I hope he does not hang about. We need a strong opposition whoever is in government and we won't get that until he and his front bench have gone.

---

I don't think he has anything to apologize about; he's a very honourable man. It's not his fault the majority of the country has been brainwashed to reject socialism and chooses to follow dog eat dog sentiments. The majority of people probably didn't look at his Manifesto in depth and chose to reject it out of hand like sheep out of ignorance.

Whatever one says about Corbyn, and I appreciate we unfortunately live in a society riddled with right wing values so he was something of a mismatch, the man has great integrity and towers above nearly anyone else in Parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

I don't think he has anything to apologize about; he's a very honourable man. It's not his fault the majority of the country has been brainwashed to reject socialism and chooses to follow dog eat dog sentiments. The majority of people probably didn't look at his Manifesto in depth and chose to reject it out of hand like sheep out of ignorance.

Whatever one says about Corbyn, and I appreciate we unfortunately live in a society riddled with right wing values so he was something of a mismatch, the man has great integrity and towers above nearly anyone else in Parliament.

---

Of course it's his fault that people are rejecting socialism. He's the leader, he and his leadership team proved to be out of touch with people and his policies were like a box of all sorts
Say what you like about Boris and his group but their message was right on song,....'Lets Get Brexit Done'...simple but in tune with the electorate

Labor had a chance to regroup after the last election and after May stepped down. They failed to take it. It was obvious that Corbyn wasn't popluar and he was easy for the Tories and the press to demonize. The party as a whole have let their supporters and their country down. Now they have five years to think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

Of course it's his fault that people are rejecting socialism. He's the leader, he and his leadership team proved to be out of touch with people and his policies were like a box of all sorts
Say what you like about Boris and his group but their message was right on song,....'Lets Get Brexit Done'...simple but in tune with the electorate

---

So what you're suggesting is that Corbyn, the leader of socialism, should've created a vague, meaningless slogan and repeated that over and over again? As has been said countless times now, his policies are well supported by the electorate. If it's just a question of presentation then one has to look all aspects of how we elect people including why we fall for the vague, meaningless slogans (of which you seem to be in favour).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

Of course it's his fault that people are rejecting socialism. He's the leader, he and his leadership team proved to be out of touch with people and his policies were like a box of all sorts
Say what you like about Boris and his group but their message was right on song,....'Lets Get Brexit Done'...simple but in tune with the electorate

---

That rather reinforces my point I'm afraid! "MAGA" springs to mind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I don't think there was a big swing against Labour directly because of what their Manifesto said, but the problem was that every day brought a new expensive policy and, by the time it came to vote, there was belief that they had gone into the realms of fantasy. Just sticking to four or five core popular policies would have suited Labour better, but, honestly, all I think it would have done was reduce the Tory majority somewhat - this election was not decided by what was in party manifestos (not sure if they ever are).

I've seen suggestions that Corbyn's "defence" of Russia following the Skripal poisonings played badly with patriotic working class voters and I think that's probably correct (although the irony which sees them voting for a man called Boris who suppresses Parliamentary reports into Russian involvement in UK elections/referendums does not escape me) - Corbyn was not the only reason Labour were routed, but I'd say he was the biggest one when you consider his stance on Brexit.

---

without asking every single voter why they voted it's always going to be open to conjecture, but one thing I'm pretty sure of is Defence, 'Russia', Anti-semitism, weren't issues that resonated with most. I agree that the ever-increasing pledges on a day-by-day basis started to smack of desperation.

Talking of desperation, I'd really like to see an end of politics on this board. It's not pleasant at times..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebirdman Of Alcathays

So what you're suggesting is that Corbyn, the leader of socialism, should've created a vague, meaningless slogan and repeated that over and over again? As has been said countless times now, his policies are well supported by the electorate. If it's just a question of presentation then one has to look all aspects of how we elect people including why we fall for the vague, meaningless slogans (of which you seem to be in favour).

---

The truth of this election and 2016 is that, much as I grew to groan every time I heard them, "Get Brexit Done" and "Take Back Control" worked briiliantly and I believe that one of the problems Labour/Remain had was a perception that they were talking down to people who are angry because they think their life is shit. I'd like to think that Labour HQ would have killed for such effective short, simple phrases, but I get the feeling that they would have thought it was beneath them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebirdman Of Alcathays

So what you're suggesting is that Corbyn, the leader of socialism, should've created a vague, meaningless slogan and repeated that over and over again? As has been said countless times now, his policies are well supported by the electorate. If it's just a question of presentation then one has to look all aspects of how we elect people including why we fall for the vague, meaningless slogans (of which you seem to be in favour).

---

" Get Brexit Done' was not a meaningless slogan. On the contrary it told the electorate concisely what the nadir of the election was all about.
Corbyn's mistake was floundering around leave/ remain.

This was an election about Brexit and through poor judgement the Labour Party focussed on a sack full of other issues essentially pulled from the 1970's about nationalising core services and screwing business and the rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

The truth of this election and 2016 is that, much as I grew to groan every time I heard them, "Get Brexit Done" and "Take Back Control" worked briiliantly and I believe that one of the problems Labour/Remain had was a perception that they were talking down to people who are angry because they think their life is shit. I'd like to think that Labour HQ would have killed for such effective short, simple phrases, but I get the feeling that they would have thought it was beneath them.

---

"For the many not the few" is a good slogan. The problem was the bloke saying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

" Get Brexit Done' was not a meaningless slogan. On the contrary it told the electorate concisely what the nadir of the election was all about.
Corbyn's mistake was floundering around leave/ remain.

This was an election about Brexit and through poor judgement the Labour Party focussed on a sack full of other issues essentially pulled from the 1970's about nationalising core services and screwing business and the rich.

---

Did you mean nadir?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

The truth of this election and 2016 is that, much as I grew to groan every time I heard them, "Get Brexit Done" and "Take Back Control" worked briiliantly and I believe that one of the problems Labour/Remain had was a perception that they were talking down to people who are angry because they think their life is shit. I'd like to think that Labour HQ would have killed for such effective short, simple phrases, but I get the feeling that they would have thought it was beneath them.

---

Labour had a slogan - For the many, not the few - but it obviously didn't resonate with the voters perhaps in part because it doesn't appeal to the national ego. Taking back control and Get Brexit done, while mightily flawed, are about striding forward as a nation. There's been a fair bit of criticism of Labour and Corbyn while everyone tries to pin down What Went Wrong but the only thing that stood out for me was their lack of understanding or ignorance of working class conservatism. A lot of people who vote Labour are patriotic and admire the royals etc and in this current culture of doubt and unease fall back into those kind of collectives rather than the hands-across-the-nation messages.

All this criticism for Labour is suggesting they weren't good enough when they actually weren't conservative enough, which is rather dispiriting in my book, but there it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Did you mean nadir?

---

I wondered what a Romanian gymnast had to do with it as well. Perhaps Zenith will chip in to sort out the confusion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Did you mean nadir?

---

No.......I meant to say nidar....ie the nucleus or similar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

I wondered what a Romanian gymnast had to do with it as well. Perhaps Zenith will chip in to sort out the confusion!

---

She was a looker back in the day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

She was a looker back in the day

---

Judged a perfect 10 by some!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vindec

"For the many not the few" is a good slogan. The problem was the bloke saying it.

---

Fair comment on both points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

I don't think he has anything to apologize about; he's a very honourable man. It's not his fault the majority of the country has been brainwashed to reject socialism and chooses to follow dog eat dog sentiments. The majority of people probably didn't look at his Manifesto in depth and chose to reject it out of hand like sheep out of ignorance.

Whatever one says about Corbyn, and I appreciate we unfortunately live in a society riddled with right wing values so he was something of a mismatch, the man has great integrity and towers above nearly anyone else in Parliament.

---

Does anyone on here really believe Socialism works? Surely not?